ring height for a Win M70 Safari Express rifle?

[matt85]

could any one please tell me what scope ring height is needed to mount a Leupold VX-6 1-6x24 (30mm tube) on a Winchester M70 Safari Express?

I know with 1" scopes you can use medium height rings on CZ 550/527 but I don't have any experience with Winchester rifles that have iron sights.

thank you
-matt

 

[James.Grage]

Matt

i do believe you are looking at the QD rings so you can use the iron sights.

use this:

http://www.leupold.com/mounting-sys...arm_type=1749&scope_series=98&scope_model=583

tweak the information that i put in to match exactly what rifle and scope you have.

 

[shuter]

could any one please tell me what scope ring height is needed to mount a Leupold VX-6 1-6x24 (30mm tube) on a Winchester M70 Safari Express?

I know with 1" scopes you can use medium height rings on CZ 550/527 but I don't have any experience with Winchester rifles that have iron sights.

thank you
-matt

Matt, I used LOW Warne Maxima QD rings on my VX3 1.5-5x and they're perfect. Would work just as well on your VX6 1-6x. I like a scope to be as low as possible and this setup is a great one. Good luck.

 

[ActionBob]

shuter is that a 1" tube or a 30mm? Not sure but I think the VX6 might have a fatter eyepiece.... How much bolt handle clearance do you have?

Matt;
I mounted my Trijicon 1-4x24 33mm tube with Warn QD Low Height .250" Maxima Series Steel Rings, Warne Part # 213LM. Had to really tighten the levers down past where they are intended to hold it tight! And keep the levers lined up straight back or straight forward to prevent recoil from shaking them loose.

The tight clearance spot is the bolt handle to the eyepiece and I think your Leupold might have a fractionally larger eyepiece.

Like shuter, I like my scope as low as possible.. But you do see the sights through it until you crank the power up to at least 2x. I never saw the sights when I was shooting at the elephant or buff and I think I had it on 1.5x.

I used Weaver bases but the Warn bases are way heavier and I would recommend them.. In fact I ordered them but they only arrived after we got back from Zim. So I have the scope off right now. When I took it off, it was obvious I had used too much "lock tight" and it was squished inbetween the base and the receiver, that might allow some slight movement so I'm still going to use lock tight, but one very small drop per screw!

I can send you the mounts and weaver bases so you can try them and send them back to me (you can keep the bases if you have a use for them).. I can easily live without them for a month. That might help you decide if you want low or med.... In fact you would be doing me a favor as I would like to know if the VX6 clears the bolt handle with these mounts. I plan to put the Trijicon on the CZ 505 Gibbs and buy a VX6 like yours for my M70 416 Rem Mag..... But if the VX6 will not fit in the low mounts I may re-evaluate..... Everyone has a different fit and low is the way to go for me.

Otherwise if your question is between medium and high, I would be pretty confident the mediums will work.

Bob

 

[ActionBob]

One other point, notice in shuter's photo the extended front base would really not be needed with a scope without a bell on the front. Using the standard short base keeps the receiver more open for loading and cleaning. However most of the charts or campany recommendations will recommend the extended base for the magnum action... Not sure why they do that other than standardizing their recommendations... maybe they just don't think it through?

Unless of course you really pull the scope way back towards your eye? (potential ouch!)

 

[shuter]

shuter is that a 1" tube or a 30mm? Not sure but I think the VX6 might have a fatter eyepiece.... How much bolt handle clearance do you have?

Matt;
I mounted my Trijicon 1-4x24 33mm tube with Warn QD Low Height .250" Maxima Series Steel Rings, Warne Part # 213LM. Had to really tighten the levers down past where they are intended to hold it tight! And keep the levers lined up straight back or straight forward to prevent recoil from shaking them loose.

The tight clearance spot is the bolt handle to the eyepiece and I think your Leupold might have a fractionally larger eyepiece.

Like shuter, I like my scope as low as possible.. But you do see the sights through it until you crank the power up to at least 2x. I never saw the sights when I was shooting at the elephant or buff and I think I had it on 1.5x.

I used Weaver bases but the Warn bases are way heavier and I would recommend them.. In fact I ordered them but they only arrived after we got back from Zim. So I have the scope off right now. When I took it off, it was obvious I had used too much "lock tight" and it was squished inbetween the base and the receiver, that might allow some slight movement so I'm still going to use lock tight, but one very small drop per screw!

I can send you the mounts and weaver bases so you can try them and send them back to me (you can keep the bases if you have a use for them).. I can easily live without them for a month. That might help you decide if you want low or med.... In fact you would be doing me a favor as I would like to know if the VX6 clears the bolt handle with these mounts. I plan to put the Trijicon on the CZ 505 Gibbs and buy a VX6 like yours for my M70 416 Rem Mag..... But if the VX6 will not fit in the low mounts I may re-evaluate..... Everyone has a different fit and low is the way to go for me.

Otherwise if your question is between medium and high, I would be pretty confident the mediums will work.

Bob

Good points, Bob. I have .070" clearance between bolt handle and Butler Creek scope cover at tightest point; so not much. The diameter of the eyepiece, including the BC flip up, is 1.670". Not sure about diameter of VX6 1-6x.

Never have had the problem of overtightening the Warne levers on several rifles. Just cranked them down and reset the levers to vertical (or close enough).

 

[shuter]

One other point, notice in shuter's photo the extended front base would really not be needed with a scope without a bell on the front. Using the standard short base keeps the receiver more open for loading and cleaning. However most of the charts or campany recommendations will recommend the extended base for the magnum action... Not sure why they do that other than standardizing their recommendations... maybe they just don't think it through?

Unless of course you really pull the scope way back towards your eye? (potential ouch!)

While I agree that the .554" front extension base isn't necessarily needed, I prefer it due to ring positioning up front. Just seems better "balanced" (subjective), and, in loading/cycling drills, the .554" really doesn't seem to be a factor in action access at all. It also gives me more flexibility in case I decide on a different scope in the future. Just some thoughts.

 

[ActionBob]

shuter, the levers should be set as close as possible to horizontal to prevent inertia from loosening them under recoil.

The VX6 eyepiece is a diameter of 1.8" so it will get pretty tight.

I agree with what you said on the front base, strictly preference.

 

[shuter]

shuter, the levers should be set as close as possible to horizontal to prevent inertia from loosening them under recoil.

The VX6 eyepiece is a diameter of 1.8" so it will get pretty tight.

I agree with what you said on the front base, strictly preference.

Agree on the 1.8" being too tight, unfortunately. Have to go with mediums. Almost enough reason for me to prefer the "lesser" 1.5-5x VX3. And I forgot to answer before: it's a 1" scope.

On the Warne levers, you're saying to position so they point toward the buttstock? Hadn't heard that. Thanks.

 

[ActionBob]

They can point straight forward or straight backwards or one forward and one back. so they are in line with the thrust of recoil.

Might seem like a small thing, but repeated sharp recoil could loosen them. If you want them pointing across the recoil thrust (up or down or angled), just be sure to check them often and keep them tight.

After my last hunt which was in absolutely miserably thick bush/thorns (very exciting hunt! enjoyed every minute of that!) I would seriously consider non-QD mounts.. And try to remember to take along a torx or allen wrench. The damned levers do snag on the bushes.

 

[shuter]

They can point straight forward or straight backwards or one forward and one back. so they are in line with the thrust of recoil.

Might seem like a small thing, but repeated sharp recoil could loosen them. If you want them pointing across the recoil thrust (up or down or angled), just be sure to check them often and keep them tight.

After my last hunt which was in absolutely miserably thick bush/thorns (very exciting hunt! enjoyed every minute of that!) I would seriously consider non-QD mounts.. And try to remember to take along a torx or allen wrench. The damned levers do snag on the bushes.

Good stuff, Bob. Thanks!

 

[matt85]

I ended up with Leupold QD medium rings. the ring height works out just fine and I haven't noticed any issue with them being high. the VX-6 scope does have a very large eye piece which does get in the way some times.

also, as ActionBob says the QD rings do come loose. if I don't REALLY tighten mine down then the recoil will vibrate them loose after a few shots.

-matt

 

[ActionBob]

Matt;
If you get a chance please post a picture like shuter's and maybe and end view with the bolt lever up.

 

[matt85]

here ya go:




I do wish there was more space between the bolt knob and the scope. cycling the gun quickly requires a special hold on the bolt handle.

-matt

 

[ActionBob]

Thanks Matt!

Looks like lots of room compared to mine. That is an issue with most guns. The geometry is really still best suited to iron sites. At least for me. That might be where the straight pulls like Blazer have an advantage.

 

[matt85]

now that you mention it, I could really see the advantage of the strait pull here.

-matt

 

[shuter]

Good info guys. Obviously I stand corrected in re my initial reply to Matt. New issues always seem to pop up when any variable is changed.

 

[shuter]

Everybody's built differently as well. Looking at Matt's setup, I have the feeling I'd have to "hover" a bit with that rifle (same as mine), in order to get a proper scope picture. I hate doing that, especially with a hard kicker. Hard to build a stock that's right for both optics and irons, I realize.

 

[matt85]

Everybody's built differently as well. Looking at Matt's setup, I have the feeling I'd have to "hover" a bit with that rifle (same as mine), in order to get a proper scope picture. I hate doing that, especially with a hard kicker. Hard to build a stock that's right for both optics and irons, I realize.

you would be surprised, the stock sits comfortably against your face with this set-up. sure your not as low as you possibly could be, but its not so high that you would need to hover your face over the stock. the difference in height between our rings is just 0.130". the picture is somewhat deceptive because my scope is larger then yours (30mm vs 1") and i don't have covers on it yet.

-matt

 

[shuter]

you would be surprised, the stock sits comfortably against your face with this set-up. sure your not as low as you possibly could be, but its not so high that you would need to hover your face over the stock. the difference in height between our rings is just 0.130". the picture is somewhat deceptive because my scope is larger then yours (30mm vs 1") and i don't have covers on it yet.

-matt

I'm sure you're right, Matt. I'm just more comfortable if I can scrunch my cheek down onto the comb a bit for a good sight picture. Of course, each rifle/scope combo is different in that regard. I've learned some things in this thread. Thanks to you and Bob for that. Happy new year!